Debate Over Nuclear Waste Storage is not Over Yet!

602
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all Troy Media columnists and contributors are the author's alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Troy Media.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all columnists and contributors are the author's alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of NetNewsLedger.

OPINION – The Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO’s) latest attempt at gaslighting the Northwestern Ontario public has failed.

Last week NWMO announced it had selected the Revell Lake area between Ignace and Dryden as a site for the deep burial of Canada’s high-level radioactive nuclear waste. In the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibwe Nation, NWMO trumpeted, it had the two “willing host” communities it needed to build Canada’s repository for used nuclear fuel.

Not true. In a referendum held on November 18th, and according to a statement issued following the vote, Wabigoon Lake Ojibwe Nation members agreed only to a process of “site characterization” (environmental assessment). The community’s “yes vote does not signify approval of the project” to build a DGR, said Chief Clayton Wetelainen.

NWMO knows this, of course, but seems to be resorting to questionable tactics in hopes of manufacturing consent.

According to We the Nuclear Free North, NWMO has “Used the Township of Ignace as a proxy decision-maker, excluding residents and communities downstream from the site and along the transportation route.” Ignace, curiously, is more than 45 kms from the Revell area and in a different watershed. There are many communities closer to DGR ground zero that have not been consulted.

And then there are many communities along the overland route through which NWMO plans to truck the waste – three shipments each day for nine months of the year for 50 years or longer. Northwestern Ontarians are well familiar with the number of accidents on Hwy 17 and other major arterial roads involving transport trucks. They won’t be convinced that a catastrophic spill can’t happen. But watch NWMO trot out all kinds of self-servingreasons why trucking the waste is super safe.

There is a sensible alternative to a DGR. Nuclear waste can be maintained and monitored near its sites of production, as it is today. Secure, above-ground facilities can be utilized until better management strategies are developed.

Currently there is no deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste operating anywhere in the world. This means that NWMO views you and me, citizens of Northwestern Ontario, as little more than global guinea pigs.

“Nuclear fuel waste remains a radioactive hazard for hundreds of thousands of years,” says We the Nuclear Free North. “A DGR is beyond risky – it is an experimental, reckless gamble posing a grave threat to present and future generations.”

Gary Kenny

Shuniah

Previous articleLiUNA Local 607 Training Centre Awarded Indigenous Skills and Employment Partner Award
Next articleNew Ontario Legislation Cracks Down on Encampments, Invests in Housing Solutions